Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
( Md. Elias Ali Shaikh And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 20 June, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
1
20.6.
2011
skm WPLRT. 108 of 2011
( Md. Elias Ali Shaikh and another
... Petitioners.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal and others
... Respondents)
Dr. Indrajit Mondal,
Mr. Amit Banerjee ... For the petitioners.
Mr. Sk. Md. Galib ..... For the State.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the order dated 21st February, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2945 of 2010 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed.
The impugned order reads such.
" Case No. O.A.NO. 2945 of 2010 (LRTT)
21.02.11
Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants is present. Learned Government Representative is also present. We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the applicants and also the Ld. Government Representative. Perused the averments made in this application. The Ld. Advocate for the applicants prays that a copy of this application be treated as a representation of the applicants by the BL & LRO and consider the same in accordance 2 with law and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. Such being the prayer of the Ld. Advocate for the applicants, we dispose of the instant application with the following order:-
The BL & LRO, Magrahat - I, District - South 24 Parganas is directed to treat the application as a representation of the applicants. He will consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same by recording a reasoned order after giving opportunity of being heard to the applicants and other interested persons, if any, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
The applicants are directed to serve copy of this application with all its annexure along with order passed by the Tribunal today upon the aforesaid BL & LRO within four weeks from today.
The appellants will be at liberty to make an application for a certified copy of the reasoned order passed by the B.l. & L.R.O. concerned and if such application is made then the certified copy of the reasoned order should be made available to the applicants within 15 days from the date of such application.
With these terms, O.A. No. 2945/2010 (LRTT) is disposed of.
Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made over to the Ld.G.R. for communication to the Authority concerned for compliance and xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for by the applicants, be delivered subject to payment of requisite court fees.
Sd/- P.K.Chakraborty Md. Ali Mondal."
It appears from the impugned order that learned Advocate appeared for the writ petitioner before learned Tribunal below and submitted that Original Application should be treated as representation and the same should be directed to be considered by the concerned B.L.& L.R.O. On such submission, learned Tribunal below directed accordingly. 3
Now Dr. Mondal, learned Advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner before us, submitted that learned Advocate did not submit before learned Tribunal to that effect.
We cannot accept such submission of Dr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner in view of settled legal position that by oral submission or by an affidavit, the recording as made by the Presiding Officer of any Court of law or Tribunal could not be challenged.
Accepting his oral submission, we can dispose of this writ application applying the settled legal position of law. Even if it is assumed for argumendo that learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner before learned Tribunal below did not submit to withdraw Original Application, still then this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order. It is settled law now, having long back of its origin, by the judgement of the Privy Council that wrong submission recorded as alleged by the party, cannot be a ground of attack controverting the order and proper course is to approach the concerned Court or Tribunal with an application seeking review. In the case Shyam Sunderam -Vs.- Subramonium reported in AIR 1926 Privy Counsel 136, Lord Atkinson expressed the view in the following language "
we are bound to accept the statements of the judges recorded in their judgements, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statements of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges' say in the judgements that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject and 4 remedy to call attention of the Court on such issue". Same view earlier expressed by Lord Buckmaster, in the case Madhusudan -Vs.- Chandrabati reported in 21 CWN 897. Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee also opined same view in the case Sarat Chandra -Vs.- Bivabati Debi repoted in AIR 1922 (Cal) 584 in the following term " in such case litigant to apply the judge without delay praying rectification or review of judgement." Same view re-echoed in the case King Emperor -Vs.- Barendra Kumar reported in AIR 1924(Cal) 257 (Full Bench). The Apex Court also considered this point in the case State of Maharashtra -Vs.- Ramdas Srinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 wherein the Court held "judge's record is conclusive, neither Lawyer nor the litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the judge's himself but no where else." The same view reiterated by the Apex Court in the case Bhavnagar University -Vs.- Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2003 SC 511, Sankar Kumar Mondal -Vs.- State of Bihar reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519, Central Bank of India -Vs.- Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi reported in (2003) 6 SCC 573, Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee -Vs.- C.K. Rajan reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546, a judgement of 3-Judges Bench. Earlier 3-Judges Bench in another case D.P.Chadha -Vs.- Triyugi Narain Mishra reported in (2001) 2 SCC 221 re-echoed the same view. Same view was taken in the case Mount Carmel School Society -Vs.- Delhi Development Authority reported in (2008) 2 SCC 141. Hence said principle in the judicial field starting from the year 1926, now got a deep root. 5
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, we are not inclined to accept submission of Dr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that Tribunal below wrongly recorded the statement.
The writ application accordingly stands dismissed.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) I agree.
(Md. Abdul Ghani, J.) .
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) (Md. Abdul Ghani, J.)